ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in adult patients undergoing bronchoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Dexmedetomidine has been increasingly used as an alternative sedative agent during bronchoscopy, but its comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine compared with other sedative agents in adult bronchoscopy. Methodology: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus were searched up to 17 December 2025 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with other sedatives. Procedural success was assessed descriptively, while procedural duration, satisfaction scores, safety and hemodynamic parameters were analyzed quantitatively in a random-effects model. Results: Seventeen RCTs were included. Qualitative synthesis showed mixed results for the adequacy of sedation between dexmedetomidine and midazolam or propofol. However, studies did note a tendency for better sedation with remimazolam as compared to dexmedetomidine. Compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxia, but was associated with higher risks of bradycardia and reduced risk of hypotension; no consistent differences were observed in procedure duration or rescue sedation. Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower rates of hypoxia and hypertension but a higher incidence of bradycardia. Compared with remimazolam, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower patient satisfaction scores and higher rates of hypoxia, whereas other safety outcomes did not show any significant difference. Studies comparing dexmedetomidine with opioids were scarce. Conclusions: Evidence shows dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative for adult bronchoscopy, comparable to midazolam and propofol in sedation levels. It may reduce hypoxia but increases bradycardia. Compared with remimazolam, it seems to offer less favourable sedation with a higher risk of hypoxia. However, data was from a limited number of studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.